You see this is why I REALLY hate politics, folks can't admit the obvious. Let's say everything that's happening under Obama's term now happened to Bush, the 9-9.2% jobless rate, the historic downgrading of our credit, entering into yet another recession (actually in my view the old recession never really ended just that the "experts" pronounced that we were out of it, remember that one?), the failure of our mission in Libya however you define it, our Syria non-policy, troop surges in Afghanistan and the two wars never really ending...well I daresay liberals would most assuredly hold Bush responsible, the buck stops with him and that's right and proper (disagree with me if you like but I'm consistent). OK let's just focus on the unemployment rate and that historic because it never happened before S&P downgrading of our credit rating since those are the two biggies here the fact remains that this happened on Obama's watch just like if they happened on Bush's watch it would be fair to say there was a lack of leadership. You see it's like this, let's say you have a store manager or a branch manager or even a company president. Charles is a swell guy, quite popular, chats with the workers around the coffee machine every morning, is good for morale, honors their birthdays when the time comes and all the other positive stuff but some of the workers aren't doing the right thing, some of the department heads ain't doing the right thing either. The place isn't functioning quite right, profits are down, maybe you can't put your finger on it but would it be fair to hold Charlie personally responsible? YES, a 1,000X yes because when anything bad happens in a business or government entity or a religious institution (e.g. the Church sex abuse scandals) the buck has to stop with someone and that someone is the head, it happened on his or her watch, he or she didn't lead, didn't have oversight. Democrats like John Kerry can call it the Tea Party downgrade if they like but that doesn't change the fact that the S&P action happened on Obama's watch and no other president's watch. What I see in President Obama is a lack of leadership, a failure to take personal responsibility and they're not the qualities and virtues I look for in a leader. What I also see is an incestuous relationship with Hollywood. Now Sony Studios which has been the biggest booster of Obama in Hollywood has a movie in the works about the raid that killed bin Laden (of course the events of that day are highly questionable but that's another blog for another day so for now just to make a point). Rep. Peter King is rightly indignant about all the leaking of classified information that's going into the making of the movie but here's the kicker, it's due to be released to the general public about a month before the 2012 elections. I've rambled on long enough but the death of bin Laden doesn't somehow magically delete the S&P downgrade or create millions of new jobs. I think race is a factor too. We all want the nation's first black president to be a success, to be more than a footnote in History or a piece of trivia in an almanac but it ain't working out that way. It's just way past time for liberals to man up and admit the obvious:)
On the other hand, let's look at the response of a lot of other Dems, including the Chris Matthews media types to Obama.
ReplyDeleteThey have been openly critical of him, publicly furious over GITMO and the continuing wars, and disdainful of the compromises he has made with the GOP.
I do not remember much criticism of President Bush from the folks at FOX, the blogs, or party leaders during his administration, even as the debt grew, entitlements grew, and the economy tanked.
Certainly the Dems were hard on Bush, and at times downright ugly. But was the GOP vocal to any degree in their criticism of? Was the GOP displeasure with Bush and his policies that we now hear about on the campaign trail and in blogs anywhere to be found?
Your points: Not that long ago I blogged about Obama's base, will the bin Laden slay anger them? My answer, it depends on which base. The more pragmatic base, the bigger one imo doesn't really care that he became Rambo overnight, continued the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so long as he's good on health-care and whatever else they like. The other base of his has deeper and firmer principles imo and do take him to task over Gitmo and the other issues you mentioned but I still think at the end of the day that most people who like Obama and voted for him like to downplay the jobless rate and blame the S&P downgrade on anyone else BUT Obama. They're just warm and fuzzy about Obama and nothing's gonna change that and we're all a bunch of haters. As to GOP criticism of Bush you are just so full of
ReplyDeleteThe Truth here
that I can't argue it. That actually goes back to the point of my blog though, that all the bad things under Bush should be put at Bush's door because it happened on his watch. I'm simply saying the same should be applied to Obama and you can just bet dollars to donuts that had the credit downgrade happened under Bush the liberals would have made hay over it.
Certainly the libs would have whacked Bush for the downgrade, at least the Code Pink folks, who I liken to the the more extreme conservative elements of the GOP.
ReplyDeleteMy complaint has always been with the folks who only complain when the other side does stupid stuff, refusing to see that this type of behavior is part of the problem here in the good ole US of A.
When either party, Dems included, can only complain about the other, and not accept responsibility for their share of the blame, it truly makes for not only bad government, but bad blogging as well.
Plenty of us conservatives complained when Bush did non-conservative things, like TARP. No politician should ever get a pass for doing things they should not being doing just because we voted for them.
ReplyDeleteHere's my position on the S&P downgrade, if it happened on Bush's watch then it would have been proper to assign the bulk of the blame to him, after all it would have happened on his watch. Since it happened on Obama's watch it's right to hold him accountable when it comes time to vote for him again. I brought up the corporate model here because it's an excellent example of the simple fact that with higher positions comes higher responsibilitites and the same thing applies to politics. Whether you want to be a store manager, a department head or the president of a large corporation well you wanted the job so you accept that you will be held responsible in the end for how everything turns out. The reason why a honcho's job is less secure than an average employee working under him or her is that he or she is supposed to be exercising oversight, making sure everything works. Same deal with the prez. Obama wanted the job, indeed seemed to want it so badly after only one term as Senator so for him to shift blame when things don't go his way or the country's way is not very presidential imo. Something happening on your watch and getting the blame for it, it may be fair or unfair but since it happened on your watch at the end of the day that's how it plays out. I'm repeating myself because the point is so important and obvious. When push comes to shove in Nov. 2012 if the unemployment rate is still high I highly doubt the average voter will blame the Tea Partiers or some other group of convenient boogeymen. Obama wanted the job, the buck stops with him:)
ReplyDeleteWhy does it matter who gets assigned blame for it? This cheerleading bullshit is annoying.
ReplyDeleteLeaders from both parties have been leading the destructive charge to devalue our currency and bring about insolvency for years.
How about we focus on a resolution to that problem rather than wasting time pointing fingers.
Soapster, that would be wonderful, but neither side, IMHO, really wants a solution.
ReplyDeleteBy keeping things the way they are, there is always something to use to hit the other side.
It is hard to campaign against the other side if things are working great and humming along...
And Z, I agree, in as much as the reasons sales are low in your department are a result of your bad work, and not crappy decisions by the buyer of goods, that department head should be held responsible.
However sometimes it does take a few sales cycles for that crummy merchandise to be gone and for the public to see that you really are carrying some new fashion foward items in your store...
Yes, it is important to assign blame, and it isn't so much blaming Obama as it is his policies that cause the economic downturn and the downgrade, oh yeah, and the members of Congress, too, who cannot control spending.
ReplyDeleteNone of it would happen if we got back to the basics of our founding fathers!
Otherwise, how do we learn from the mistakes if we don't assign who or what is to blame? How can we suggest solutions if we don't agree on what didn't work??
ReplyDeleteLet me look at this in a work context.
ReplyDeleteWhen there's a serious problem, assigning blame is both pointless and a huge waste of time.
Fixing the problem is the issue.
While someone's busy pointing fingers and trying to say she did this or she did that, we still have a problem.
Deal with technicalities later. It's a matter of priority.
This is what happens in politics: everyone spends so much time trying to blame things on this person or that person and meanwhile shit is still sitting undone.
See, this is where you and I differ, Beth. You want to assign blame. Me, I say STFU with the blaming. Gembutsu and fix it.
Yes, that is a BIG difference between you and I Saty, you just want to do random patchwork fixes instead of analyzing what went wrong so that the best solution can be determined.
ReplyDeleteSat I'm glad you pursued my work context here because politics is so much similar and Obama you could say is the Chief Executive. Now who gets the bulk of the blame when things go wrong, the Chief Executive. You know it's funny but as soon as I blog about something I'll see something in the paper to kind of buttress my point. A police precinct commander in Northern Manhattan has been booted from that post because there's been a big crime spike in his precinct and residents are complaining. Now was he responsible for the crime spike and is it fair that he was reassigned? Well you can argue that 'til the cows come home Saty but that's the way the workworld works. We want RESULTS and that precinct commander didn't get them. Again and I'm repeating myself but it happened on his watch and this too is the way History ultimately judges presidents. Jimmy Carter was president during a sucky time with massive gas lines and high inflation so he went down in History as one of our suckier presidents. Didn't matter that he was a nice guy who intended to do the right thing, the verdict has been rendered. What I'm seeing here is distaste for assigning blame to Obama but I say it's ok because this is the way all presidents are ultimately judged so the way I see it is there's no bias involved at least in my book.
ReplyDeleteOR to put it another way if I were an adviser to Obama I'd say throw the ideology, the class-warfare schtick right out the window and get those numbers turned around.
ReplyDelete@Saty:
ReplyDeleteRight on point. It's a battle of he said, she said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D58v4eiUuI
Exactly, Z-man, Saty uses work as an example, but people get blamed all the time at work, and so if someone needs to get fired, they get fired. We unfortunately cannot fire Obama or Congress until they come up for re-election, but we can make our voices heard when we don't like what they are doing, and when we don't like their policies.
ReplyDelete@Soapster - I thought conservatives believe in personal responsibility, don't we? For Obama not to take responsibility shows a lack of leadership as well as a general lack of class. Seems to me you don't want to be able to point fingers in case Ron Paul ever does something stupid and then you can say not to blame him, but don't worry, he won't ever be president where you'll need to worry about that.
Personal responsbility is one thing. Finger pointing without addressing the root cause is quite another. And, for the record I'm not a conservative. I'm a libertarian.
ReplyDeleteRoot causes are fine soapie but if something goes wrong then someone is to blame. If your workplace is f'ed up or your political system it makes no sense to say it's f'ed up but nobody's to blame, we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. BTW how old is Ron Paul?
ReplyDeleteOld enough to be president under Article II Section I.
ReplyDeleteOn your other point, it is rather pointless to spend countless hours on looking for an individual(s) to stand on the other side of your pointed finger while the root causes go unaddressed.
So what if, politically speaking, you point your finger at Obama and say his policies are ineffective and are making things worse.
It might be a platform for some but it is no more an effective one.
@Beth re: Ron Paul never becoming president
ReplyDeleteSomething you and many others who make this and similar claims don't understand about the r3VOlution is this:
The Ron Paul r3VOlution transcends Ron Paul and it transcends politics. It is a vehicle which is bringing people from all different corners together to teach them about firearms, beekeeping, organic gardening, Austrian econimics, Agorism, voluntaryism, canning, et al.
Further, it matters not if Ron Paul becomes president for the simple fact that he is being vindicated each and every day. And when the political system in America comes to a point (it's already reaching critical mass on this point) where it beocomes necessary for "...the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." it will be the individual's who've come together under these very pretenses who will have the most positive effect on charting a new course for their prosperity.
Re: Ron Paul's age
ReplyDelete“I challenge Any Other Candidate to Ride 20 Miles in 100F Heat with Me” -Ron Paul (August 19, 2011
http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/08/ron-paul-i-challenge-any-other-candidate-to-ride-20-miles-in-100f-heat-with-me-aug-19-2011/
All of you yahoos who think there should be no "blame game", I ask you, did you ever blame Bush for anything during his presidency? Have you ever blame Wall Street for the economy? Did you ever blame a company for an oil spill or a government (local, state or federal) when a natural disaster struck and the response was not up to par?
ReplyDeleteThe blame game is politicking; point tallying really, with little interest in problem solving. I think you're missing the point entirely.
ReplyDeleteI've far less concern with who caused what to happen than I am with the root cause itself.
As an analogy, it is a perfectly fine thing to know that you got an algebra question wrong on a test and it may serve someone's interest to point and scoff at you for having done so. Knowing how and why it is wrong and knowing how it can be corrected is far more beneficial.
We can talk about root causes during the Carter presidency, why there were long gas lines and high inflation but the historical consensus is that Jimmy Carter wasn't one of our better presidents. I think you can have both, examine root causes and still say that somebody was not part of the solution but part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteFar too many people never address the root problem (politically or otherwise). Hence the wash, rinse, repeat cycle of politics.
ReplyDeleteLet me bring up the work context again since it's a good parallel to the political situation. I've been in workplaces that were dysfunctional at times, there were problems and issues. There is right now as a matter of fact and sometimes and here I disagree with one of Saty's points above but sometimes if you objectively analyze the situation you'll come to the conclusion that one or maybe two people are at the root of the problem. Sometimes the root cause of a problem is a person, his or her personality, lack of knowledge of the area etc. I think this hearkens back to the Self-Esteem Movement, we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Now how does this apply to Politics? Some of you seem to be saying even if mostly negatives things happen during Obama's first term when the time comes to vote for or against him we should just overlook the negative things that happened on his watch because then we're blaming him and not looking for root causes. Sorry, I can't buy this.
ReplyDeleteIf you're assumming I am in that class I must say you've completely failed in understanding my position.
ReplyDeleteAs Chief Executive, Obama implements policy. The policies are the root causes.
Simply voting out Obama because you deem him to be at the root cause is pointless if you don't understand the root cause itself. By failing to understand the root cause you are only that much more likely to fill the vacuum with another individual who operates on the same failed root causes.
How do people separate Obama from his policies? Of course, rational people do, but the typical voters are not rational. They will vote again for Obama because he is black, or has a nice smile, or just because they have been told that conservatives are mean people, which is totally irrational. His policies (not just his but progressive policies) suck, and rational people would never in a million years re-elect him.
ReplyDeleteI predict another 4 years of Obama of course, the brain-dead outnumber the rest of us rational folks.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. There's no question Obama was swepted into the Oval Office with a flurry of the black vote. I saw it with my own eyes as I waited in line to vote that very day.
ReplyDeleteThe luster has worn off. I'd venture to say that about 75% of those folks aren't going to show up at the polls this go round.
What's more, the r3VOlution is picking up new converts every single day (just picked up two new ones last night at our weekly meetup).